Foreign policy is a different matter. Paul’s skepticism about American military interventionism—the Iraq War, the Afghan War, the war Israel and the neocons are trying get America to fight with Iran—resonates far more among foreign-affairs specialists, the military, the intelligence community, and the Republican rank and file. Paul’s campaign has the potential to begin bringing that skepticism into the inner reaches of the GOP—where the interlocking web of big donors and neoconservative-run think tanks and media have managed to keep the doves, realists, and other skeptics at bay.
This may be recorded as neoconservatism’s most singular achievement: to have their disastrous strategies enacted in Iraq, see them thoroughly discredited, and yet nonetheless retain their spots as the Beltway arbiters of “responsible” conservative opinion, with the power to exclude those who dissent. But the neoconservatives understand better than anyone how tenuous is this hold on the Washington discourse, how necessary it is to crush dissident movements before they can grow beyond the cradle. Thus a septuagenarian congressman who is an outlier in his own party must be treated as a mortal threat, his ideas not debated or refuted, but obliterated, presented as so far beyond the pale that no sane person could entertain them. [emphasis mine]
It's great to see attention being given to this fact that for so long the GOP has either willfully ignored or deliberately suppressed. And that is Ron Paul's foreign policy is widely supported by those with expertise in foreign policy affairs. He receives more support from military troops (both active and retired) than any other presidential candidate, as well as being the only one to receive endorsements from top CIA intelligence officials. It seems impossible to reconcile the idea of "supporting our troops" while ignoring the message our troops are sending to us - that Ron Paul is right on foreign policy.